With the state of politics today, I have found it increasingly difficult to align myself with one political party over another. Furthermore, candidates who belong to a major party are pigeonholed into advocating for platforms in order to gain support from their respective parties. Is this the system for an ever more complex political field? Or would the elimination of political parties lead to anarchy in the election process?

In today's society there are several political parties (see link for more details http://www.politics1.com...)
The larger ones are the Republican and the Democat political parties, but when you go into the 3rd political parties there are so many and it would be hard not to find one that doesn't fit you. For example I have tested myself several times and have been dubed Coneservative, Republican, however on the new PBS political quiz I get the Conservative, Tea Party, so tests may very such as: http://www.theadvocates.org..., http://www.people-press.org..., and even the newest one I've sceen http://www.pbs.org....

Sure many elections come and go and the two top dog parties are the Democrat and the Republican, that's because those two parties have lasted more over time. At first it was Federalist vs. Democratic-Repbulican, then Federalist vs. Democrat, then Democrat vs. Whig and Know-Nothings, then Democrat vs. Republican as it is today. Over the years there has also been separtings and mergings of political parties such as the Whig to Republican, the Progressive split from the Republican, and the Populist merge with the Democrat party. I now a wait my opponets move.

You bring up great points: that there are myriad parties to choose from, that this is the way it has been for some time, that parties evolve and split/merge. But I still find two major problems. First, any party beneath republican and democrat are not seriously considered during a presidential election. In today's political playing field, 3rd parties are used as platforms to bring up issues that wouldn't normally come up in a two-party debate. The candidates of these 3rd parties swing votes from one side to the other, or simply draw votes from a particular side. This is not to say that, often, they are not serious contenders to hold office. Simply put, 3rd parties are often a tactic more than an option.
My second issue is that you did not explore the potential of elimination the party system. This would allow candidates to truly choose hold their opinions on issues without losing support from their own parties. The two main parties have significant funds running their campaigns leaving the smaller, poorer parties without publicity. Eliminating the party system would allow for a more level playing field where the best candidate would have a best chance of winning.

You bring up great points: that there are myriad parties to choose from, that this is the way it has been for some time, that parties evolve and split/merge. But I still find two major problems. First, any party beneath republican and democrat are not seriously considered during a presidential election.

I answered this last round it's because these parties haven't been around as long as the Republican and Democratic parties and if you want to look at who's falt this is you can look at Super-PAC (they're the one's that fund the campaigns.) If you really truely want to have a political party such as the Green Party to be in serious contention then they're just going to have to go on a road trip to several states in order for Super-PAC to start funding them.

In today's political playing field, 3rd parties are used as platforms to bring up issues that wouldn't normally come up in a two-party debate. The candidates of these 3rd parties swing votes from one side to the other, or simply draw votes from a particular side. This is not to say that, often, they are not serious contenders to hold office. Simply put, 3rd parties are often a tactic more than an option.

Every year there is a 3rd party on ballots for this very reason, but every year they change due to giving the minor parties a fair share if you want to point the blame on why a Green Party president hasn't been elected it's because of the American people aren't very educated when it comes to political parties.

My second issue is that you did not explore the potential of elimination the party system. This would allow candidates to truly choose hold their opinions on issues without losing support from their own parties. The two main parties have significant funds running their campaigns leaving the smaller, poorer parties without publicity. Eliminating the party system would allow for a more level playing field where the best candidate would have a best chance of winning.

Now this is the problem if we abolish the political system we would have total anarchy, because people would be thinking of radical ideas. In today's society you can even create your own political party siding with your own beliefs. Look at Congress and the House of Repressentitives are full of Rebulicans and Democrats (see http://hobnobblog.com... for more details) so it's almost garunteeded that they won't let the system be abolished and Obama (Dem) won't let it happen and that's 2/3s no meaning the plan won't pass, so the government won't allow it to happen.